288153 - XULRunner does not have the Security Icon's artwork or css styling

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Toolkit Graveyard :: XULRunner, defect)

Description

[:Gijs (he/him)]

While being styled differently on Seamonkey and Firefox, the security Icon's css
(located in browser.css or navigator.css for Fx and Sm respectively) is not
present in XULRunner. The artwork for the icon also seems to be missing.

Is this something that is intended to be fixed? It would greatly help
development of XULApps in certain cases. The same probably goes for the online /
offline icon.

Comment 1

[Benjamin Smedberg]

Where is this icon referenced? It is part of PSM? XULRunner does not intend to
provide lots of generic UI icons, at least at this time; unless the icon or the
UI that requires the icon is shipped with xulrunner, I would mark this as
WONTFIX. You're certainly allowed to steal the browser artwork for your own apps.

Comment 2

[:Gijs (he/him)]

The icon's images are controlled through css attribute selectors. The attributes
are controlled from nsISecureBrowserUI. That is, until I started plunging
through its source (and the underlying security code) to get it working on
ChatZilla, which changes everything from js code :-).

Sorry if this seems impolite, but was the stealing remark supposed to be
understood as sarcasm? I'm not sure, to be honest, I'm not a native English
speaker :-).

Comment 3

[Benjamin Smedberg]

The stealing remark was not sarcastic, you are welcome to steal the Firefox
icons. I don't think at this point that I want to start including these icons in
the xulrunner build itself, so you will need to include them in your application
chrome.

Comment 4

[:Gijs (he/him)]

It turns out that the icons used by Seamonkey (not Fx) *are* in fact present in
XULRunner builds, (classic.jar, skin/classic/communicator/). The css is not,
however.

I'm therefor itching towards marking this bug either invalid, or waiting for
someone to mark it wontfix (which is what I think will happen if we don't want
to replace that artwork, as pointed out in comment #3)

BSmedberg, what do you think about this?

Comment 5

[Benjamin Smedberg]

eww, how did those get there? Don't count on them staying there, that might be a
build error of some sort.

Comment 6

[Jens Bannmann]

Marking WONTFIX as implied by Benjamin in comment 1.
http://wiki.mozilla.org/XUL:Xul_Runner says XULRunner will eventually provide
security UI, but as the example there is keychain management, I doubt this
extends to the UI elements for indicating secure connections in the XUL
application itself.